Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by Kantastic, Oct 13, 2011.
I can't wait to see Intel's "really real cores" marketing campaign for their octo parts.
Well, I think you're right on that... and yet wrong. I think AMD just didn't know how to market it properly.
Yes, it's in many ways functionally a quad-core with a kind of hyperthreading.
But, because of its architecture, it is able to function as a kind of hybrid or 'true' octo-core depending on the workload.
The easiest way to think about it is this: It's a quad-core with the on-chip granularity to allocate up to 8 'cores' to different tasks, if you so choose. This is very interesting, especially if you compare it to the i5-2500K which is 4 cores, 4 threads. And I think performance-wise that is a good comparison.
AMD needs to refine the stepping, lower power consumption, and lower the prices a bit, then there will be some competition.
and is there something wrong with what i typed? GPU`s are the only income AMD has these day`s
I'm one of those guys. I knew this was coming though so it's no surprise for me.
We have to remember, just because "we" say it's fail, does not make it a fail, enthusiasts only consitute at most (guess) 5% of the market, OEM's constitute a large part of it, the product will be pitched as "AMD's newest" etc etc and many people out there will purchase I am willing to bet, especially the 4 core and perhaps the 6 core models..... where most of the business should come from anyway, providing those lower end processors are cost competative they will do alright with it, after all if this year AMD have increased market share, albeit by a very small margin, and they have done that off the back of mainly 2/3/4 core P II's, this will at least sound, to the unknowing ear as a vast improvement
"EX-Employee" without identification makes this rumour.
This is news how?
what he said, is matching what were seeing.
So I can justify his opinion as somewhat correct.
Quote " .....which meant we had to stop hand-crafting our CPU designs and switch to an SoC design style. This results in giving up a lot of performance, chip area, and efficiency......"
The chip hogs watts
The chip is lacking in performance with its specifications
its huge over 2 billion transistors, pointless l2 cache and a bunch of other shit jumbled in it.
There is nothing more to explain, it should have been optimized better for gaming, and the operating systems, ect.. ect... Should have been thought out way more, cause I can see the shitload of problems and I have -1% experience with management and design ect ect.....
What he said is a grain of "salt" though, could be bias. But in general its still lacking in power, efficiency, and a combo plate for a die architecture.
There is nothing more to even Derp about now...
Yes, that's why I said it's like HyperThreading on steroids. I would say a closer comparison would be the 2600K, as that's got HT and so can also present 8 threads to the OS and compared to that chip it gets cained. Here's a gaming benchie from guru3d for example: FX8150 = 75fps, 2600K = 94fps. It's just wrong. :shadedshu
I wouldn't say wrong as such. Bad, yes.
But again, in some heavily multithreaded apps it is on par with SB. I do not know why people ignore this. BD is slower overall and in singlethreaded it's awful though, there is no denying that, but credit where credit is due.
You think OEM's are going to be up for a CPU you eats twice as much power (forcing more powerful\reliable PSU's) and offers the same performance to it's customers? They could just as easily market an i3-2100 and advertise it as "Energy Efficient!".
Yes of course, after all they still put PII's in them when for the same money pretty much you can get an i3/i5 that will outperform it, they will still cater for all markets, possibly because they get incentives to do so....... with an OEM it is not just about speed or efficiency, it's about marketability and for many who buy OEM's "new" sells more than "old"...... even if in this case "old" might even be better in some things.
Doesn't this situation feel like Vista for Microsoft? Think about it, Vista had lots of "groundbreaking" new technology in it, yet it sucked balls, with low performance, bugs and resource hogging. Only when SP2 arrived were the kinks mostly ironed out. It never had that much performance though and it took Win7 to turn it around. I just wonder if the same will be true for AMD with their next gen CPU's? I wouldn't hold my breath though.
And don't forget the financial incentives that AMD could put these OEMs' way too, of course. Otherwise yes, xenocide is right, using the best chip would make complete sense. In the end, the whole thing turns political with who pays who, muddying the waters considerably, lol.
Vista was never that bad. The problem was that OEM's sold it on very low powered systems with tons and tons of bloatware. A clean install on a machine that could handle it and it was smooth. Also drivers, but I'm not sure Microsoft should be blamed for that.
I think it was that bad in the beginning. It really wasn't hard to blue screen it at all. However, the endless patches properly cured this particular fault. And yes, it was put on low powered machines with 'only' a gig of RAM, which really strangled it - heck, that strangles Win7 today.
Having said that, I've got a HP d530 PC with 2GB RAM. This is a Pentium 4 2.8GHz PC, so is quite slow by modern standards. Running Win7 is quite acceptable on it and Aero runs smoothly (GF6200 plugged in) while Vista is noticeably sluggish, with every window opening after a noticeable delay.
As I recall the majority of vista BSODs were at the hands of nvidia's drivers.
Oh, they were notorious, I'll give you that but not the only cause of it - it managed to fall over quite happily all on its own (I was running an AMD card back then) until it was patched.
Ohhhh be careful what you say. You might get infracted.
People do not ignore that, but they do not ignore that this is a 2 billion transistor and 315 mm^2 chip. Such a behemoth can only match or sometimes slightly exceed a chip that is half the size, half the power consumption and has an integrated GPU. Without the GPU SB 4C would be a 750 million transistor and 180 mm^2 chip. You just cannot ignore that. How many real cores with HT could Intel put into a 2 billion transistor and 315mm^2 behemoth? While simple math cannot give an accurate answer to that, more or less: 2000/750 = 2.66 (times SB) -->> 4 cores * 2.66 ~= 10 Sandy Bridge cores. About the same amount of Thuban cores would fit too. Now tell me that BD architecture has any credit. Tell me that their multithreading method is more efficient than Hyperthreading, and where because I just simply fail to see how and where that happens.
And that's not the worst part anyway, the worst part is that BD is not coming even close to Thuban in terms of perf/area and it's not better in perf/watt either despite being made on a smaller node. Those two things are where BD was supposed to improve over the previous gen and instead of that it's atrocious, no matter how you look at it. A true 8 or 10 core 32 nm Thuban would probably do much much better than BD in every front.
Sure, for customers, Zambezi products are not that bad, because of the low price, but that doesn't change the fact that the technology is simply not even close to what it was claimed.
How many times has Fermi been ridiculed for being 40% bigger (and power hungry) than Cypress for only 20% performance improvement? Where does that leave Zambezi? Being almost 3x !!!! times bigger than SB's CPU part while only being able to match its performance in a few scenarios. It's simply worng, it's pathetic. We need a much better AMD or we are all doomed.
No what we need are more cores! MOAR CORES!
Hey, what's with you and all the snidey comments to me lately? How about you start a thread in GN and PM me the link? Let's see if you've got the balls for that. Now stop crapping threads on TPU.
Who said it was to you? It was a warning to Mindweaver. He better watch what he says because some people without a backbone might take what he says the wrong way and report his post. I'm just tryin to help.
It seemed like it - you have made some dodgy posts to me lately. But ok, no problem.
Who you sayin' got no backbone?
Oh no not you. You're doin a GREAT job with the news. Super duper even!
This is what I mean. Ok, no more off topic - PMs or GN please.
Separate names with a comma.